Biogeography of Dietes (Iridaceae)
jgrehan at ADELPHIA.NET
Thu Jan 23 06:52:22 CST 2003
Geoff Read wrote:
>Gosh, that's fantastic news! What a revelation! Thank goodness
>panbiogeography is around to shed light into these quirky dark corners of the
>distribution of life on our planet.
Sorry, I found this to be a bit of an obscure statement. Do you mean that
you did not understand what information was being provided by a track baseline?
>Not to be unkind, and it's an interesting happenstance, and I love these
>conundrums as much as anyone, but there is only one eastern data point. I
>don't think calling the simple reality a standard track is of any benefit
>rest of us.
Right! It's of no benefit at all if one does not recognize the concept and
implementation of spatial homology in biogeography.
Ken Kinman wrote:
I couldn't agree more. I am still not sure if this brand of
panbiogeography is too much "pan" or too little "pan". It just
strike me as very predictively heuristic. More like being frozen
excessive and overwhelming fear of circular reasoning, and thus
with a rather minimal amount of scientific value.
People are, of course, free to make their own choices about the matter.
Since Ken is a Darwinian biogeographer (and evolutionist) it would not be
possible for him to accept the scientific value of panbiogeography since
the latter is a rejection of the former.
Charles Darwin got some things wrong, but considering what was known
at the time, he was incredibly good at pushing the envelope----and
overall fitness of his ideas have certainly given them a superior
survive much competition and "predation".
If popularity is the test of scientific merit then the above would be
correct. So even though he got biogeography wrong, it has, by definition,
high fitness and superior ability to survive alternatives.
I suspect the same will happen with the ideas of Ernst Mayr which
have gotten a lot of criticism in the past decade or so. So it goes.
Mayr got biogeography wrong too. He even missed the plate tectonics boat -
something Croizat did not.
It all comes out in the scientific "wash" eventually, and future
philosophers and historians of science are going to have their
hands full analyzing the past couple of decades in the history
I think they will probably have their hands full with any of the decades.
It will be interesting to see how philosophers and historians of science
deal with panbiogeography getting things right with respect to the
generation and corroboration of novel geological predictions where the
competing Darwinian research program did not (the Galapagos example I
mentioned earlier provides a classic illustration - Croizat was successful
in predicting the tectonic significance of the Galapagos whereas Mayr and
other Darwinian biogeographers failed to make this prediction by virtue of
the Darwinian method).
More information about the Taxacom